I'm starting to see people join the R-L21 Plus Project because of their Geno 2.0 results who do not have any STR markers. That's fine as long as they are L21+ or positive for one of the downstream SNPs. The big problem is that they are like ghosts when it comes to the project's public web site, because men without STRs don't show up.

I'm starting to see people join the R-L21 Plus Project because of their Geno 2.0 results who do not have any STR markers. That's fine as long as they are L21+ or positive for one of the downstream SNPs. The big problem is that they are like ghosts when it comes to the project's public web site, because men without STRs don't show up.

They're hovering there in the project but are otherwise invisible.

We've seen a couple of these in Ireland project as well, only thing I could suggest is that when the next sale comes in to recommend that they order STR's, the old analogy of the STR's been the leaves on the tree (as oppose to SNP's been the branch) and only way to find close matches may help.

I keep getting folks joining my projects without STR test results. They only have Geno 2.0 results and so won't show up on our Y-DNA Results pages.

I'm having to tell them what STRs are and asking them to order yet another test on top of their expensive Geno 2.0 test.

But I am going whole hog and recommending 111 markers.

Might as well.

Yes, we test 111 markers as normal now (saves having to "gee" them up for further STR tests) and then suggest individual SNPs depending on how they cluster.

I'm not yet convinced of the value of Geno 2. I think I'd prefer a "deeper" deep clade.

Some 111 marker results from the December sale are now coming in.

I agree that the 111 markers is going to be a great thing. I've got several examples now where they've told a different story than at 67 markers. One in particular for an L513+ L706.2- Connell who I would have pretty heavily bet as being L706.2+. In fact, i thought his L706.2- was an error. Now that he has 111 markers, we can see the L706.2- reading looks right on. It just seems weird, that you could match on six fairly slow off-modal markers at 67 STRs and be GDs of 7 through 10, but be off as much as 20 additional steps on the last 44 markers (68-111) and still be under L513+.

These are very g-eneric and reflect ancient admixture between Hunter Gather, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlers. Like 23andme they have a long way to go in getting more detail of regional populations. I can get far better definition by combining analysis from Geno 2.0, AC, RF and HTMM.

I believe Paternal and Maternal Haplogroups and their matching frequency can tell us a very interesting story about my deep ancestry of Ireland but also can give clues to my more recent ancestors migratory experience.

I do not believe the power of this analysis is used to the full extent by 23andme, FTDNA or by Geno 2.0 for that matter.

First it is interesting to see what the latest research says about our ancestors migrations. In my case I use the latest data from J.P.Mallorys book "The Origin of the Irish". It tells the following story.

Distribution of L21 (M529) Map with peak in Ireland and distribution along the Atlantic Facade

Next I look at my over 1,000 Relative Finder matches and create a Network Diagram mapping Paternal Haplogroup to Maternal Haplogroup and Maternal Haplogroup to Paternal Haplogroup. This is consistent with the findings of Mallory but in addition it gives me clues to the more recent migrations of my ancestors. The dominant L21 Paternal and H1 Maternal who stayed in Ireland is reflected in the diagram. Those ancestors who migrated to the US and were the earliest settlers of Minnesota and married with other Irish families or with the local German families in Minnesota as reflected in the U106 matches. Again this is entirely consistent with my knowledge of my ancestors story and with the latest scientific studies.

My conclusion is that our Paternal and Maternal Haplogroups and their matches tell us a much more powerful story than is currently available with Haplogroup Analysis alone or Ancestry Composition. Even Geno 2.0 which is the benchmark for deep ancestry does not exploit this capability.

There is a case to be made for integrating the data available from RF and AC and Haplogroup Tree Mutation Mapper to give a more accurate picture of our ancestors migrations.

I just want to make sure I understand the numbers above from Mallory's Table 8.6.

When it lists Connacht at 95%, are they saying that 95% of all men in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of the men with Irish surnames in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of Irish men with Connacht based surnames are R1b?

The Scottish 53% number seems a little low. Are these Scottish surnames in Ireland?

I just want to make sure I understand the numbers above from Mallory's Table 8.6.

When it lists Connacht at 95%, are they saying that 95% of all men in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of the men with Irish surnames in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of Irish men with Connacht based surnames are R1b?

The Scottish 53% number seems a little low. Are these Scottish surnames in Ireland?

Mike,

The most basic attempt to relate surnames to the Y Chrosomone was undertaken in 2000, when DNA samples were drawn from males with Irish surnames and then arranged according to province and compared with those of men living in Ireland whose surnames were not Irish. This is what is shown in table 8.6. The highest frequency of R1b occurs in Ireland and the highest frequence of R1b and sub clades in Ireland occurs in the West of Ireland.This was later confirmed by Busby and Myres.

I know you are interested in the Walshes of the mountains. I am putting together a board on the Wine Geese, those Irish who left following the defeat at Aughrim and Limerick for the continent (Wild Geese) and who distinguished themselves in European armies and settled down as owners of wine chateaux.Several of the Grand Chateaux belonged to the Walsh-Serrant who are apparently directly descended from Walsh of the Mountains, so maybe you might pay a visit on you next trip to France. These are not "Vin de Table". These are amongst the "Grand Cru" of France.

I just want to make sure I understand the numbers above from Mallory's Table 8.6.

When it lists Connacht at 95%, are they saying that 95% of all men in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of the men with Irish surnames in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of Irish men with Connacht based surnames are R1b?

The Scottish 53% number seems a little low. Are these Scottish surnames in Ireland?

Mike,

This most basic attempt to relate surnames to the Y Chrosomone was undertaken in 2000, when DNA samples were drawn from males with Irish surnames and then arranged according to province and compared with those of men living in Ireland whose surnames were not Irish. This is what is shown in table 8.6. The highest frequency of R1b occurs in the West of Ireland.....

Thank you.

I'm still unclear on the Scottish and Norman/Norse categories. Of course they are NOT Irish provinces of so are those two categories of surnames. In other words, 53% of the men in Ireland with Scottish surnames are R1b and 83% of the men in Ireland with Norman/Norse surnames are R1b? Is that what this is saying?

I just want to make sure I understand the numbers above from Mallory's Table 8.6.

When it lists Connacht at 95%, are they saying that 95% of all men in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of the men with Irish surnames in Connacht are R1b?or 95% of Irish men with Connacht based surnames are R1b?

The Scottish 53% number seems a little low. Are these Scottish surnames in Ireland?

Mike,

This most basic attempt to relate surnames to the Y Chrosomone was undertaken in 2000, when DNA samples were drawn from males with Irish surnames and then arranged according to province and compared with those of men living in Ireland whose surnames were not Irish. This is what is shown in table 8.6. The highest frequency of R1b occurs in the West of Ireland.....

Thank you.

I'm still unclear on the Scottish and Norman/Norse categories. Of course they are NOT Irish provinces of so are those two categories of surnames. In other words, 53% of the men in Ireland with Scottish surnames are R1b and 83% of the men in Ireland with Norman/Norse surnames are R1b? Is that what this is saying?

Mike,Correct. That is what he is saying but he continues, "In short at this degree of resolution (year 2000) we can only say that an Irish identity has been mapped onto the distribution of an earlier genetic type, not that the genetic type is in any way associated with being Irish."

We know that there was a lot of admixture between the majority Irish and the minority Normans, so that the Normans became "More Irish than the Irish themselves". Moffat and Wilson also tells us that Scotland has a very diverse Haplogroup mix so that R1b did not reach the frequencies it did in Ireland.In any event the later more detailed Myres and Busby data confirms the higher frequencies of R1b and subclades in Ireland and in particular the West of Ireland.

One of the problems with the Mallory book and others eg Catherine Nash, Of Irish Origins, is that they depend on old studies eg Underhill, and relatively few STRs. I don't criticise these studies. They were the pioneers. However, the industry has moved on and Autosomal studies are widely available, and Next Generation Sequencing is now the benchmark.I would have more confidence in Tyler Smith and Patterson. Unfortunately they do not interpret the Irish context or Archealogy and Language.

Mike,Correct. That is what he is saying but he continues, "In short at this degree of resolution (year 2000) we can only say that an Irish identity has been mapped onto the distribution of an earlier genetic type, not that the genetic type is in any way associated with being Irish."

We know that there was a lot of admixture between the majority Irish and the minority Normans, so that the Normans became "More Irish than the Irish themselves". Moffat and Wilson also tells us that Scotland has a very diverse Haplogroup mix so that R1b did not reach the frequencies it did in Ireland.In any event the later more detailed Myres and Busby data confirms the higher frequencies of R1b and subclades in Ireland and in particular the West of Ireland.

One of the problems with the Mallory book and others eg Catherine Nash, Of Irish Origins, is that they depend on old studies eg Underhill, and relatively few STRs. I don't criticise these studies. They were the pioneers. However, the industry has moved on and Autosomal studies are widely available, and Next Generation Sequencing is now the benchmark.I would have more confidence in Tyler Smith and Patterson. Unfortunately they do not interpret the Irish context or Archealogy and Language.

I wonder if I can that 2000 DNA/Irish surname study. Did he cite it in the references?

Mike,Correct. That is what he is saying but he continues, "In short at this degree of resolution (year 2000) we can only say that an Irish identity has been mapped onto the distribution of an earlier genetic type, not that the genetic type is in any way associated with being Irish."

We know that there was a lot of admixture between the majority Irish and the minority Normans, so that the Normans became "More Irish than the Irish themselves". Moffat and Wilson also tells us that Scotland has a very diverse Haplogroup mix so that R1b did not reach the frequencies it did in Ireland.In any event the later more detailed Myres and Busby data confirms the higher frequencies of R1b and subclades in Ireland and in particular the West of Ireland.

One of the problems with the Mallory book and others eg Catherine Nash, Of Irish Origins, is that they depend on old studies eg Underhill, and relatively few STRs. I don't criticise these studies. They were the pioneers. However, the industry has moved on and Autosomal studies are widely available, and Next Generation Sequencing is now the benchmark.I would have more confidence in Tyler Smith and Patterson. Unfortunately they do not interpret the Irish context or Archealogy and Language.

I wonder if I can that 2000 DNA/Irish surname study. Did he cite it in the references?

Mike,

I believe it is Hill et al (2000)

Y-chromosome variation and Irish origins

Emmeline W. Hill1, Mark A. Jobling2 & Daniel G. Bradley1

Ireland's position on the western edge of Europe suggests that the genetics of its population should have been relatively undisturbed by the demographic movements that have shaped variation on the mainland. We have typed 221 Y chromosomes from Irish males for seven (slowly evolving) biallelic and six (quickly evolving) simple tandem-repeat markers. When these samples are partitioned by surname, we find significant differences in genetic frequency between those of Irish Gaelic and of foreign origin, and also between those of eastern and western Irish origin. Connaught, the westernmost Irish province, lies at the geographical and genetic extreme of a Europe-wide cline.

What's funny I think is to remove a norse name they removed anyone called Doyle. Personally I think that people read to much into meaning of a surname and do direct translation.

For example does Ó Dubhghaill (O'Doyle/McDowell, MacDougal etc.) mean "descendant of a Black-Foreigner" (eg. Norse Viking) or does it mean descendant of a man called Dubhghall. After all as a personal name it still survived today anglisced as Dougal. My feeling is that people are reading the name literally which might not be the case at all.

Another prime example is MacManus. Maghnus as a first name derives from Viking usage and was introduced into Ireland and adopted by "Native Irish" as a name to give their sons -- just as today for example I gave my own son the good "Roman name" of Marcus.